No, Windows Phone users are not being used as beta testers for Windows 10 on ARM

Yes but if you have a PC the size of a phone how much of that are you going to be able to use while away from a desktop experience? That's the million dollar question. Are we really going to be doing full Photoshop and Office on a screen that small?

To answer your question let's first look at your statement. You said "what will these small phone sized PCs be used for outside of having the unique ability to be full PCs when using Continuum?" A PC with a proper x86-based Windows Desktop OS doesn't need Continuum. You're not going to be any more productive on Android or iOS even with their vaunted ecosystems on a phone-sized screen. But connect to an external display and the game is changed.

This is a moot point for your average consumer so let's keep the discussion where it belongs - the Road Warrior. Given the opportunity to have a full desktop device that can make calls will be the choice of professionals any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Another thing to consider is people in emerging markets may not be able to purchase a high-end Android or an iPhone of any ilk along with a laptop or full desktop setup. A pocket PC and a $99 display from Crazy Eddy's won 't set you back as far.

To answer your question let's first look at your statement. You said "what will these small phone sized PCs be used for outside of having the unique ability to be full PCs when using Continuum?" A PC with a proper x86-based Windows Desktop OS doesn't need Continuum. You're not going to be any more productive on Android or iOS even with their vaunted ecosystems on a phone-sized screen. But connect to an external display and the game is changed.

This is a moot point for your average consumer so let's keep the discussion where it belongs - the Road Warrior. Given the opportunity to have a full desktop device that can make calls will be the choice of professionals any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

Another thing to consider is people in emerging markets may not be able to purchase a high-end Android or an iPhone of any ilk along with a laptop or full desktop setup. A pocket PC and a $99 display from Crazy Eddy's won 't set you back as far.

Well that's again my point. Who are they targeting? Is this just for enterprise and the few Windows Phone faithful out there or are they trying to pull consumers away from the competition?

I was serious, but I'll help. You believe that based on the desktop user experience, we'll easily be able to tell whether a device incorporates an ARM or x86 based CPU. Apparently for two reasons:

Speed differences...

Sure, but had you read all of my post you might have noticed the part where I say "ignoring potential performance bottlenecks". However, even performance isn't a sure give away, as a sufficiently old Atom CPU will also make it impossible to tell the difference.

ARM chips feature always on LTE, GPS

First, those are not ARM chip features. Those are Snapdragon features.

Second, while I agree that those features are more likely to be incorporated in Snapdragon than x86 based designs, I can also nitpick and point out that there is no technical reason x86 based devices couldn't also include them. There is also no guarantee that every Snapdragon based design will always enable them. Either way, there is nothing about the desktop user experience that would clearly and 100% accurately signal to everyone what CPU architecture a particular device is based on.

The point being made was in regard to software, specifically Win32, and the role the API plays in the various versions of Windows. The point was that Win32 will play the exact same role on W10oA and W10, run natively on both, and be emulated on neither! If Win32 will support GPS features on ARM, it will also support GPS features an x86. If Win32 will support always on LTE on ARM, then it will also support always on LTE on x86. If Win32 will support none of those features on x86, then Win32 won't support them on ARM either.

As a result, it will be impossible to tell, based only on the desktop user experience, which CPU architecture the device is based on, because Win32, the API providing the bulk of the functionality used by most Windows desktop software, will be exactly the same on both.

If you disagree with that main point, then we have a real discussion. I'd prefer not to get bogged down in nitpicking issues that are tangential and immaterial to the main point.

Well that's again my point. Who are they targeting? Is this just for enterprise and the few Windows Phone faithful out there or are they trying to pull consumers away from the competition?

What competition? Android doesn't have a desktop OS (please, don't say ChromeOS) so there's no competition there and iOS doesn't even have a file manager to be able to work offline. I've said it before and I'll say it again at the risk of being flamed again. The way they're currently set up, iPhones and iPads are app launchers with even less offline capabilities than a Chromebook. I own an Acer 13" Chromebook, I'm well aware of its capabilities.

What competition? Android doesn't have a desktop OS (please, don't say ChromeOS) so there's no competition there and iOS doesn't even have a file manager to be able to work offline. I've said it before and I'll say it again at the risk of being flamed again. The way they're currently set up, iPhones and iPads are app launchers with even less offline capabilities than a Chromebook. I own an Acer 13" Chromebook, I'm well aware of its capabilities.

Well they're still competing against phones whether they like it or not. They're competing for appeal so that's what I'm saying. I'm just interested in seeing how it will all work but don't be fooled by thinking that just because they will have these unique devices that they don't have competition. They are competing with popularity and a strong ecosystem. And they are also competing for the "Surface affect" when/if Apple, Samsung and others compete with their own versions of what Microsoft plans to do.

Yes but if you have a PC the size of a phone how much of that are you going to be able to use while away from a desktop experience? That's the million dollar question. Are we really going to be doing full Photoshop and Office on a screen that small?

That's what CShell is for. You will use the interface of W10M when on the run, but will get the desktop UI with an external interface or a projector. Only then you will use Photoshop.

Or there will be a foldable phone/tablet hybrid. So you will have the W10M UI when folded and W10 "desktop" when unfolded

I was serious, but I'll help. You believe that based on the desktop user experience, we'll easily be able to tell whether a device incorporates an ARM or x86 based CPU. Apparently for two reasons:

Sure, but had you read all of my post you might have noticed the part where I say "ignoring potential performance bottlenecks". However, even performance isn't a sure give away, as a sufficiently old Atom CPU will also make it impossible to tell the difference.

First, those are not ARM chip features. Those are Snapdragon features.

Second, while I agree that those features are more likely to be incorporated in Snapdragon than x86 based designs, I can also nitpick and point out that there is no technical reason x86 based devices couldn't also include them. There is also no guarantee that every Snapdragon based design will always enable them. Either way, there is nothing about the desktop user experience that would clearly and 100% accurately signal to everyone what CPU architecture a particular device is based on.

The point being made was in regard to software, specifically Win32, and the role the API plays in the various versions of Windows. The point was that Win32 will play the exact same role on W10oA and W10, run natively on both, and be emulated on neither! If Win32 will support GPS features on ARM, it will also support GPS features an x86. If Win32 will support always on LTE on ARM, then it will also support always on LTE on x86. If Win32 will support none of those features on x86, then Win32 won't support them on ARM either.

As a result, it will be impossible to tell, based only on the desktop user experience, which CPU architecture the device is based on, because Win32, the API providing the bulk of the functionality used by most Windows desktop software, will be exactly the same on both.

If you disagree with that main point, then we have a real discussion. I'd prefer not to get bogged down in nitpicking issues that are tangential and immaterial to the main point.

You said we wouldn't be able to tell. But we will. I was pointing that out. Your injection now, of the word "easily" somewhat corrects this, however you can also easily tell whether your windows 10 has always on LTE, and GPS. Also you can just go into the system settings and see the chipset.

I think performance of something demanding like a highly graphical game, probably will give it away - if it runs well under UWP, but games run poorly under win32 for example. Perhaps though - not easily.

I wasn't really engaging your whole post, simply that specific statement. Simply that there are differences, even if the UI design is the same and the bulk of the OS software the same.

If you find that a distraction, that's fine ignore me :P Your certainly correct in the general point you were making, that for the average user, it will simply be 'windows 10' with some additional hardware features. If a piece of software runs not quite as well, they won't blame the OS, they'll blame the software.

You said we wouldn't be able to tell. But we will. I was pointing that out. Your injection now, of the word "easily" somewhat corrects this, however you can also easily tell whether your windows 10 has always on LTE, and GPS. Also you can just go into the system settings and see the chipset.

Ho hum. Of course we could look up the CPU in the system settings. We could also compare battery life which is likely one of the best indicators. We could also cut open the case and just look at the CPU. Of course there are ways to tell.

Again, that's not the point. You apparently missed the part where I state that we won't be able to tell going only by the desktop user experience, e.g. by using Word, Excel, a game, or an internet browser. Although I did mention that in the first post, I probably didn't emphasize it enough.

To cut a long story short, neither performance nor always-on LTE or GPS connectivity are in any way directly tied to the CPU instruction set. We can deliberately select a lower-end x86 CPU to make performance indistinguishable, or add a connectivity module to any x86 based device running W10. By doing so, the things you consider to be good indicators become meaningless. All of that is beside the point however, so I don't want to elaborate.

I'm glad we agree on the main point:

Win32 will play the exact same role on W10oA and W10, i.e. run natively on both, and be emulated on neither! As this similarity isn't just limited to Wi32, but applies to the entire OS (W10oA and W10 are essentially the same OS, just compiled for difference CPUs), both will have OS support for the exact same features and support them all in the exact same way (including always-on LTE and GPS). In terms of the desktop user experience, there is no difference between W10oA and W10.

Ho hum. Of course we could look up the CPU in the system settings. We could also compare battery life which is likely one of the best indicators. We could also cut open the case and just look at the CPU. Of course there are ways to tell.

Again, that's not the point. You apparently missed the part where I state that we won't be able to tell going only by the desktop user experience, e.g. by using Word, Excel, a game, or an internet browser. Although I did mention that in the first post, I probably didn't emphasize it enough.

To cut a long story short, neither performance nor always-on LTE or GPS connectivity are in any way directly tied to the CPU instruction set. We can deliberately select a lower-end x86 CPU to make performance indistinguishable, or add a connectivity module to any x86 based device running W10. By doing so, the things you consider to be good indicators become meaningless. All of that is beside the point however, so I don't want to elaborate.

I'm glad we agree on the main point:

Win32 will play the exact same role on W10oA and W10, i.e. run natively on both, and be emulated on neither! As this similarity isn't just limited to Wi32, but applies to the entire OS (W10oA and W10 are essentially the same OS, just compiled for difference CPUs), both will have OS support for the exact same features and support them all in the exact same way (including always-on LTE and GPS). In terms of the desktop user experience, there is no difference between W10oA and W10.

Again IDK about "no difference". It seems pretty unlikely for example that "mostly near native speeds" for the chipset emulation, and api conversion caching will not be subjectively detectable in some instances. For e.g high demand software. In these instances comparable UWP will offer superior UX, at a tangible level. Examples of demanding software might include real time sound rendering, such as professional music composition, video compiling software, and 3d games (which all exist on the UWP platform as well as win32).

Certainly if there was a UWP and win32 version of the same software, you could likely benchmark it, and empirically show this. I'm expecting 70 percent at best of native speeds.
Which for something like excel is no big deal, but for other software, it absolutely is.

Indeed as far as I am concerned, the difference between truly native UWP, and win32, in terms of speed, scaling, toast notifications and utilisation of touch, gps, always on LTE (the later ones which are not specific to UWP, but more common there than in win32, and part of making a UWP from a win32 anyway) - the difference is one of the strategic points in WoA = to encourage the UWP platform, by enabling win32 as a kind of legacy support.

The average user absolutely won't know there is any difference in the OS. They'll just think of it as windows 10, and that's all it will be. They'll be buying a laptop and notebook, and the SoC features will merely be sold as hardware features 'with always on LTE and GPS', for example.

But there are UX reasons for users of WoA devices to prefer UWP over win32, where the option is available. They are harder to distinguish but not identical experiences: WoA runs UWP better than it does win32.

Again IDK about "no difference". It seems pretty unlikely for example that "mostly near native speeds" for the chipset emulation, and api conversion caching will not be subjectively detectable in some instances. For e.g high demand software. In these instances comparable UWP will offer superior UX, at a tangible level. Examples of demanding software might include real time sound rendering, such as professional music composition, video compiling software, and 3d games (which all exist on the UWP platform as well as win32).

True. Which is why I said "ignoring some performance bottlenecks". As usual you're trying to nitpick the least important things, while failing to consider the caveats that have already been mentioned. Let's move on.

Yes but if you have a PC the size of a phone how much of that are you going to be able to use while away from a desktop experience? That's the million dollar question. Are we really going to be doing full Photoshop and Office on a screen that small?

Yes but if you have a PC the size of a phone how much of that are you going to be able to use while away from a desktop experience? That's the million dollar question. Are we really going to be doing full Photoshop and Office on a screen that small?

Certainly if there was a UWP and win32 version of the same software, you could likely benchmark it, and empirically show this. I'm expecting 70 percent at best of native speeds.
Which for something like excel is no big deal, but for other software, it absolutely is.

You still not get the argument right. a5cent pointed out several times, that Win32 SW will run natively on ARM. So it is not about the difference of UWP vs. WIN32. The only question is, if the application you are running was originally compiled for x86.
If the application was compiled to x86 and you are trying to run it on an ARM device, it will run slower - quite a bit slower and not just 70% mind you? However it does not matter what API the application is using.

You also have to understand, that you can compile both UWP and Win32 apps for either, ARM only, x86 only or both. There is no guarantee at all, that either UWP or Win32 versions are available natively for ARM (or x86).
Essentially the question of API and the question of ISA are orthogonal.

Microsoft has been hinting at an all in one solution for a long time now. It's been slow and painful, and yes they have raised the white flag on "phones" but not on mobile software by any means.

"One Core" is an idea that is slowly coming into focus. Unlike Apple who are happy to have an OS for desktop, and an OS for mobile and tablet until such a time that the market cries out for a unified OS, and then Apple will make out like they invented it.

Windows RT was a learning ground or proof of concept that a Windows Core was ready for ARM.

So yes there will not be a "Surface Phone" , as the handle "Phone" says right off the bat it is mainly good for one thing and that is being a phone.

What will come out is going to be an everything in one device, it will adapt to fit your needs. It's why they have been working on C shell, Continuum, Windows RT, Surface Type Covers and what ever else they do. It also explains why they helped Samsung with Dex, to gain more insight into adaptability.

Microsoft is more then happy to let partners sell the harware as they work and advance the software. You will notice this with the latest Windows 10 S Education
Microsoft released a Surface Laptop basically as a Top of the line /design standard, and their partners are starting to push the low and middle ground, just check the Microsoft Store for Low Cost Windows 10 S Laptops

Look at the many Surface Pro clones out there, or Surface inspired 2 in 1's.

So for Mobile I think Microsoft will focus on the Business Professional much like HP with the Elite X3, but it will be a device that can adapt to how you need to use it.

Windows 10 on Arm ( Arm for the much better battery life), with C Shell in the Mix, Continuum and more from all prior steps taken by Microsoft tossed in.

Surface has had some interesting developments over the last while......

You have to step back and look across the whole Surface line to get an idea of where it's headed.

So the OP is right in saying there is not going to be a Surface Phone, but there is going to be a device that will have Win10Arm with a good ability to do Telephony, but also be able to do some grunt work like Office, Photoshop and other Win32 or x86 and take the place of a Laptop and Desktop for Mobile use.

Also remember Intel let it out they are thinking legal action over Windows 10 on Arm, so this may slow development down, but my Gut says it's empty threats by a Giant who's failure to enter the mobile field has them butt hurt and lashing out.https://www.windowscentral.com/intel...windows-10-arm
.